Foxen v. Carpenter

Plaintiff’s suit against her former attorney was barred by the one-year statute of limitations on legal malpractice because, even though plaintiff sought to allege claims for breach of contract and the like, ultimately her claims depended upon allegations that the attorney had not performed his professional duties in the proper manner.  Plaintiff’s suit against her former attorney who had represented her in a prior personal injury action was barred by CCP 340.6.  Though plaintiff alleged claims for breach of contract and the like, each depended upon allegations (and ultimately proof) that the attorney had not performed his professional duties in the proper manner.  Professional duties extend beyond giving of legal advice to ancillary tasks, such as in this case, dividing the proceeds of the prior action in accordance, with the representation agreement, subtracting costs and fees before paying the rest to plaintiff.  Unlike Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, plaintiff’s conversion claim was also barred by CCP 340.6 since there was no undisputed sum withheld by the attorney.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 (Grimes, J.); November 3, 2016 (published December 1, 2016); 2016 WL 7017964

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s